Lessonsfromaverdict

ThreeconclusionsmaybedrawnfromtheSupremeCourtrulingthattheTamilNadugovernment
didnothavethejurisdictiontoappointaSpecialPublicProsecutortohandletheappealsfiledby
former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. First, it reflects poorly on the State government, which
displayed what the court called anxiety to ensure representation for the prosecution when her
bail application came up for hearing immediately after her conviction in a Bengaluru Special
Court in September last year. Secondly, the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka governments
demonstrated inexcusable ignorance of the legal position that once a case was transferred from
one State to another, the transferring State loses jurisdiction to pursue it further. This position
had been underscored by the Supreme Court only a few years ago. Thirdly, the Supreme Court
continuestolayemphasisonthepurityofthecriminalprocessincorruptioncasesandwillnot
countenance attempts to derail the process. Fears that the disposal of the appeals made in the
Karnataka High Court by Ms. Jayalalithaa and her three associates against their fouryear jail
termwouldbedelayedhavebeenallayed,asthethreejudgeBenchheadedbyJusticeDipakMisra
hasruledoutadenovohearing.IthasalsoclarifiedthatSection301oftheCrPC(whichsaysa
SpecialProsecutorappointedforacasemayappearwithoutwrittenauthorityinanycourt)does
notmeanthatapersonappointedasprosecutorinadistrictcourtcouldalsoappearbeforeahigh
courtinthesamecase.
The Karnataka government has now brought back B.V. Acharya, who had earlier vigorously
prosecutedthecasebutwasforcedtoresign,torepresentitwhilefilingitssubmissionsbeforethe
High Court. It will be seen as a legal setback to Ms. Jayalalithaa mainly because she and her
lawyers gave the impression that they wanted Mr. Bhavani Singh to be the prosecutor in the
appellatestagetoo.Theyoughttohaveknownthatnocourtwouldallowtheaccusedtochoosethe
counsel for the prosecution. As a result, the court has asked the High Court to disregard Mr.
Singhs written submissions, if any. The Supreme Courts reminder to the High Court that
corruption has a corroding effect, that it is the duty of an appellate judge to scrutinise
objectively the evidence on record in its entirety and that his reasoning ought to be resolutely
expressed,maycausesomeanxietytothedefenceastowhetherthereisanyimplicitdirectionto
theHighCourttodecidethematterinaparticularmanner.However,alookatthecontextwould
show that the Supreme Court is doing no such thing. Rather, it is only reinforcing its view that
want of proper assistance from one side need not affect the outcome if the appellate judge is
sufficientlyobjectiveandavoidsweaknessandvacillation.
Keywords:Jayalalithaaappeal,BhavaniSinghappointment,B.V.Acharya,JayalalithaaDAcase

www.thehindu.com
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/lessonsfrom

averdict/article7151374.ece

averdict/article7151374.ece
http://goo.gl/ffgS